Why is politics such an aggressive atmosphere?

A forum for the respectful exchange of views on thought-provoking topics, whether sexuality-related or otherwise; please read the guidelines prior to posting.

Forum rules

Welcome to the Intellectual Discussion subforum.

This forum is the place for intellectual discussions, such as philosophical or scientific debates. There are some guidelines that apply specifically to posts in this forum, of which you will be expected to have made yourself aware before participating. They are as follows:

Intellectually stimulating topics only. If you can't have a deep discussion about something, it does not belong here.

If you're going to post, have something to say. When you make a new thread, write the initial post in a way that provides an introduction to the topic and invites further discussion. You could tell us how you feel and why, but always aim for constructive responses that further a discussion about the ideas involved, rather than a simple list of people's views. (Instead of asking "Are you a vegetarian?", discuss some of the arguments involved.) This guideline likewise applies for responses to topics.

Write using good English. That means full sentences with proper capitalisation, punctuation, spelling and grammar. No one is perfect, though; this is not an invitation to criticise others for minor mistakes.

Be nice. This is a forum for rational discourse, not flame wars. No one is always right. Be respectful of other people's views and accept that we are all entitled to our own.

These guidelines will be enforced by the moderators based on their best judgement, and anyone who does not take them seriously will lose the privilege of posting here. Spammers will be banned from the entire forum.

I want to use Brexit as an example. When 52% (near enough, 51.9% if you want to get pissy over it) of the people who voted in the EU referendum voted to leave, the people on the other side called people who voted to leave things along the lines of being racist and called for another referendum, claiming it was (essentially) rigged. I personally sit on the fence over whether it will be a benefit or a downfall.

It seems people who align with only one side of a agenda have a extremely strong bias towards it. They can't see it from another perspective, but really, every single side should be opened to criticism, rather than every being called libtards or racists. And Liberal and Conservative sides are both as bad as eachother.

And then there are actual racists and homophobes (and etc).

I.Just.Don't.Get.Itwhy?

Hold me in this wild, wild world'Cause in your warmth I forget how cold it can beAnd in your heat I feel how cold it can get

Unfortunately, many individuals insert feelings and emotions into political discussion, which can cause wild discourse. Because of this, it can sour friendships and create an uncomfortable situation as not everybody likes openly debating views.

Political chat should be encouraged to be and accepted as a normal conversation as it it important, but, unfortunately, not everyone sees it that way.

Well, politics is important in people's lives, and their values are important to them. In the defence of their ideals, people can become inflamed and aggressive. I am very passionately involved in politics, and I am an active member of the youth wing of the Australian Labor Party. I have learned to bite my tongue before a situation gets out of hand. I am better now at quickly identifying a debate or discourse that could go sour, I am better at surrendering when I am convinced I am defeated on a point. I can't blame people for being passionate about their politics, but they need to do it respectfully.

People think that their ideologies are the ones most capable of shaping a perfect world. When your ideas are different to theirs, it threatens their idealism by way of implying a different outcome to the one they have dreamt of, and they get emotional in response. That's essentially it.

I'm 100% in agreement with you about the 'racist' label being used as an ad hominem way too frequently.It cheapens the label. As a result of it being overused so much, genuinely racist people and groups, such as "White Nationalists', can now use that as an 'argument' when other people point out how blatantly racist they are."Libtard" is never appropriate in a genuine political debate. I can't think of any situation where it could be used to form a logical argument.People expressing certain 'vile' views (such as racism) DO deserve to be hated as a person. Like, if someone said to me "I think the rich control too much" or "Brexit is a bad idea", I would disagree with them but I wouldn't hate them as a person. Hating someone for the latter just shows a high degree of immaturity. Whereas, if someone said to me "blacks are inherently inferior" or "the holocaust never happened", I would detest them and their views.

PHMED wrote:Because politics literally shapes the world; decisions made through politics affect every being on this planet, from humans to animals. There must be passion given these circumstances.

Basically this, politics are a pretty inherent part of a person's beliefs and opinions. Even if someone says they don't care about "politics" in the sense of politicians or whatever they're still going to vehemently hold true to, and defend, their political views.

I don't know how many of you are British, but watching footage of the house of commons is always rather upsetting, the tories and labour party hurl insult after insult at each other, the backbenchers jeer, it's chaotic. I strongly believe in an opposition, but currently politics is far too divisive and real instances of collaboration are few and far between, so I think this aggressive side of politics, these flared emotions and cheap insults are just intentional theatre. If you can belittle the other side in some way and aggressively demean them it distracts from the failings of whatever policy you've preached, further to that the pure spectacle of aggression again distracts from the actual politics. In my opinion that holds true for most opposing sides, take your example brexit (I myself am a remainer and I'm not saying Brexit will be a tragedy in the long run, but I believe it certainly could be terribly pernicious, this state of limbo is what terrifies me, the uncertainty) the leave campaign were spewing out material intended to frighten, take the supposed flood of immigration that was supposed to come from turkey, such aggressive rhetoric for many will stop them listening to any sort of adverse viewpoint - aggression = extremity, and extremity froghtens people into doing what they're told

17Alex0301 wrote:I don't know how many of you are British, but watching footage of the house of commons is always rather upsetting, the tories and labour party hurl insult after insult at each other, the backbenchers jeer, it's chaotic. I strongly believe in an opposition, but currently politics is far too divisive and real instances of collaboration are few and far between, so I think this aggressive side of politics, these flared emotions and cheap insults are just intentional theatre.

Prime Minister's Questions is just theatre. The government tries to convince their agenda is good, and the opposition tries to hurl gotcha questions out to embarrass the government and score political points. Every parliamentary democracy is like that. Same thing happens here in Question Time and Senate QT. Its just an hour of public spectacle. When it comes to debate, they get impassioned - of course they do. The other week, in Australia a Labor MP Tanya Plibersek went off and shouted down the Liberal MP for Reid on a debate about penalty rates. I think its wrong to say that just because the two sides try to score points during parliamentary sessions means that the two sides won't ever collaborate. There will always be issues where the two sides will stand united, and there will be bipartisan support. It may be harder for Britain to find those issues in the climate of Brexit, but there will always be areas of bipartisan support - they might not get as much attention however, because lack of bipartisanship is less interesting.